I found myself agreeing with a lot of how Fried describes the Game of School, and it's unfortunate that it's a game that is played at all. Fried brings up a lot of really good points in regards to what influences teachers passion and enthusiasm for teaching. So much pressure is put on teachers to accomplish an unrealistic amount of work with not enough support or resources.
When Fried described how the students in the after-school program did their reading homework, I was embarrassed to admit that I used to do similar things. As a student, there's so much pressure to fit in and be "cool", and I don't know if that's something that can be changed. Thinking about it, I wonder where the mentality that being smart means you're not cool came from, or why being a jock is cooler than being a mathlete. Would things be different if it was cool to be smart and do homework? I think it definitely would relieve some of the pressure from teachers because they wouldn't have to press so hard for students to pay attention or try to get students interested in learning. As Fried writes, when creativity is crushed with rote memorization, a lot of harm is done to students' desire to learn because what they're doing isn't actually learning; it's pretending to learn! The result: the players that Fried describes as the "A" student, the "B" student, etc. I really liked these descriptions because I absolutely agree with them. Students know how to play the game to get the grade they want. I admit to playing the game of an "A" student. When I found something difficult, I didn't take the time to try to actually learn it. I would just memorize it in order to get an "A" on the test. My brother, on the other hand, was the "C" student. He did only what he had to in order to pass the course and nothing more. Even though he has a photographic memory and a genius IQ, he didn't put in the extra effort because he didn't want to. If students have the opportunity to do the minimum amount of work and still move on to the next grade, why bother putting in the extra effort? I did because I'm a perfectionist, not because I really wanted to learn Shakespeare or the periodic table. That's a sad and horrible thing to admit, but it's the truth.
I think it would be impossible to have every student be interested in every single subject all of the time. However, if teachers asked students, "what has to happen around here in order for you to be willing to study hard, think deeply, and take pride in your work" (100) maybe more students would become interested. I agree with Fried that teachers and students should work together to figure out what is missing in school and how to improve it. Most teachers do pass out course evaluations, but having a dialogue would be much more beneficial. Filling in bubbles on a piece of paper is very different than having a creative discussion about what could change and how teachers could help students and what students can do to help teachers.
Quick-Write - The Game of School
I found myself agreeing with a lot of how Fried describes the Game of School, and it's unfortunate that it's a game that is played at all. Fried brings up a lot of really good points in regards to what influences teachers passion and enthusiasm for teaching. So much pressure is put on teachers to accomplish an unrealistic amount of work with not enough support or resources.
When Fried described how the students in the after-school program did their reading homework, I was embarrassed to admit that I used to do similar things. As a student, there's so much pressure to fit in and be "cool", and I don't know if that's something that can be changed. Thinking about it, I wonder where the mentality that being smart means you're not cool came from, or why being a jock is cooler than being a mathlete. Would things be different if it was cool to be smart and do homework? I think it definitely would relieve some of the pressure from teachers because they wouldn't have to press so hard for students to pay attention or try to get students interested in learning. As Fried writes, when creativity is crushed with rote memorization, a lot of harm is done to students' desire to learn because what they're doing isn't actually learning; it's pretending to learn! The result: the players that Fried describes as the "A" student, the "B" student, etc. I really liked these descriptions because I absolutely agree with them. Students know how to play the game to get the grade they want. I admit to playing the game of an "A" student. When I found something difficult, I didn't take the time to try to actually learn it. I would just memorize it in order to get an "A" on the test. My brother, on the other hand, was the "C" student. He did only what he had to in order to pass the course and nothing more. Even though he has a photographic memory and a genius IQ, he didn't put in the extra effort because he didn't want to. If students have the opportunity to do the minimum amount of work and still move on to the next grade, why bother putting in the extra effort? I did because I'm a perfectionist, not because I really wanted to learn Shakespeare or the periodic table. That's a sad and horrible thing to admit, but it's the truth.
I think it would be impossible to have every student be interested in every single subject all of the time. However, if teachers asked students, "what has to happen around here in order for you to be willing to study hard, think deeply, and take pride in your work" (100) maybe more students would become interested. I agree with Fried that teachers and students should work together to figure out what is missing in school and how to improve it. Most teachers do pass out course evaluations, but having a dialogue would be much more beneficial. Filling in bubbles on a piece of paper is very different than having a creative discussion about what could change and how teachers could help students and what students can do to help teachers.